Chennai Court July 1967 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rangaswami and anr. Vs. T.R.C. Krishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ173
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 359 of 1960 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tirupattur. The properties involved in the suit admittedly belonged to them. But the case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff became the lawful owner thereof. It is stated that one T. S. Ramasesha Iyer, brought the properties to sale in execution of a money-decree which he obtained in S.C. No. 755 of 1932, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tirupattur, against the appellants, purchased the properties in Court auction himself and obtained the sale certificate Exhibit A-l, dated 17th April, 1935 and took such delivery as was possible under Exhibit A-2 on 4th July, 1935. It is further alleged that T.S. Ramasesha Iyer, was throughout acting as a benamidar for his brother T. S. Chengalvaraya Iyer, the explanation being that Chengalvaraya Iyer, was a retired Deputy Collector and it was felt advisable that such transac...
K.T. Kosalram Vs. Dr. Santhosham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad116
ORDERVenkatadri, J. 1. This is an application by the Returning Officer, Tiruchendur Parliamentary Constituency, to strike off his name from the array of parties in Election Petition No. 10 of 1967. The applicant figures as the fifth respondent in the election petition. In this application, he states that he is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the petition, that no relief has been asked for against him, that it cannot be said that the presence of the applicant will in any way enable the Court to adjudicate more effectively and completely the questions raised in the election petition, that he has acted only in the course of his duty as Returning Officer and has not done anything contrary to the statute, that the election petition has not disclosed any cause of action against him and that, therefore, his name may be struck off from the array of parties in the election petition.2. The election petitioner has stated in his counter that he has impleaded the applicant as a part...
S. Mohamed Ibrahim Hadhee Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC378(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J. 1. We have in this case come to the conclusion, for the reasons which will presently appear, that it should be allowed to the extent of a turnover of Rs. 27,735.58 and that the assessing authority will consider afresh whether this part of the turnover was included in a turnover of Rs. 80,615 brought to tax as constituting inter-State sales for which declarations in Form C have not been filed.2. The matter relates to the assessment year 1958-59. The assessee during the relevant period was a registered dealer both in the State of Kerala and this State, carrying on business in arecanut seeval. He had his head office at Pattambi in the State of Kerala. The course of his business was, he brought arecanuts from the State of Kerala to Kuniamuthur in the State of Madras, converted the same into seevals, and effected inter-State sales by despatching the goods by rail. He filed a return in Form I and his accounts which were checked, disclosed a turnover of Rs. 86,929.25. The ...
K.T. Kosalaram Vs. Dr. Santhosham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ433
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. This is an application by the Returning Officer, Tiruchendur Parliamentary Constituency, to strike off his name from the array of parties in Election Petition No. 10 of 1967. The applicant figures as the fifth respondent in the Election Petition. In this application, he states that he is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the petition, that no relief has been asked for against him, that it cannot be said that the presence of the applicant will in any way enable the Court to adjudicate more effectively and completely the question raised in the election petition,, that he has acted only in the course of his duty as Returning Officer and has not done anything contrary to the statute, that the election petition has not disclosed any cause of action against him and that, therefore, his name may be struck off from the array of parties in the election petition.2. The election petitioner has stated in his counter that he has impleaded the applicant as a pa...
Bapu and Company Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1967
Reported in: [1968]22STC17(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This petition is directed against the levy of a penalty of Rs. 8,978 under Section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner purchased electrical goods between 1st October, 1958, and 31st March, 1961, but under the C Forms in vogue prior to 1st October, 1958. As the law then stood, Section 8(3)(b) included in the C Form goods intended not only for resale but also for use in the manufacture of goods for sale or for use in the execution of any contract. This provision was amended with effect from 1st October, 1958, and under the amended provision, use of goods by the assessee in execution of any contract is not permitted. There is no dispute that the forms actually issued to the assessee were those in vogue, as we said, prior to the amendment. After the purchase of goods the assessee used them in execution of certain works contracts which he had entered into. On the ground that in doing so he contravened Section 10(d), the penalty was levied. The majority ...
Shansshia Oil Mills Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1967
Reported in: [1967]20STC481(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. Only a single item of turnover among others was in dispute right through and that related to an inter-State transaction. The question was whether it was covered by a declaration in Form C with full particulars. S-612. It is admitted that the declaration in C Form was lost in transit and that in spite of time given by the assessing authority, the assessee could not produce it before the assessment was completed. What appears to have been done, however, is that he obtained a photostat copy of the counterfoil of the declaration in Form C issued by the purchasing dealer and produced the same before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. He disposed of the question by observing that it was only a copy of the counterfoil and not even an authenticated copy of the foil and that there was no provision to accept the C Form at that stage. The Tribunal practically shared this view and said that the declaration in Form C should have been filed within the prescribed time with fu...
Bapu and Company Vs. the State of Madras (Represented by the Joint Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ455
K. Veeraswami, J.1. This petition is directed against the levy of penalty of Rs. 8,978 under Section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner purchased electrical goods between 1st October, IJ958 and 31st March, 1961 but under the C. Forms in Vogue prior to 1st October, 195(r). As the law then stood, Section 8(3)(i) included in the C. Form goods intended not only for re-sale but also for use in the manufacture of goods for sale of for use in the execution of any contract. This provision was amended with effect from 1st October, 1958 and under the amended provision use of goods by the assessee in execution of any contract is not permitted. There is no dispute that the forms actually issued to the assessee were those in vogue as we said prior to the amendment. After the purchase of goods the assessee used them in execution of certain works contracts which he had entered into. On the ground that in doing so he contravened Section 10(d), the penalty was levied. The majority...
Shansshia Oil Mills Panruti, Represented by Partner H.S. Mohd. Ibrahim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ432
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. Only a single item of turnover among others was in dispute right through and that related to an inter-State transaction. The question was whether it was covered by a declaration in form 'C' with full particulars.2. It is admitted that the declaration in 'C' form was lost in transit and that in spite of time given by the assessing authority, the assessee could not produce it before the assessment was completed. What appears to have been done, however, is that he obtained a photostat copy of the counterfoil of the declaration in form 'C' issued by the purchasing dealer and produced the same before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. He disposed of the question by observing that it was only a copy of the counterfoil and not even an authenticated copy of the foil and that there was no provision to accept the 'C' form at that stage. The Tribunal practically shared this view and said that the declaration in form 'C' should have been filed within the prescribed time...
Veeramalai Vanniar (Died) and ors. Vs. Thadikara Vanniar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad383; (1968)1MLJ437
(1) This batch of four appeals arises out of four suits which were tried and disposed of by a common judgment by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tanjore. Appn. No. 199 of 1962 is against the decision in O. S. 29 of 1960, the evidence in which, by consent of parties, was treated as evidence in the other suits. It will be therefore convenient to refer to the rank of the parties and the controversy in that suit, as the decision therein has to simply follow in the other three appeals.(2) The appellant in A. S. 199 of 1962 (hereafter referred to as the appellant) filed the suit, O. S. 29 of 1960, claiming specific performance of an agreement of sale of the suit properties, of an extent of about 11/2 velies, situate in the village Nala Uthamanallur, Tanjore Taluk. The plaintiff's brother is the first defendant and the latter's wife is the second defendant. Minor defendants 1 and 2. Ammaniammal, the sixth defendant, to whom the suit properties belonged died pending suit and on her death her...
Ramalakshmana and Company and anr. Vs. the State of Madras by the Depu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ180
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. Though the petitioners are different, as a common point arose their appeals were heard together by the Tribunal and the petitions directed against the appellate Orders are also posted together. The common point is whether the assessee, who is a commission agent, and therefore, a dealer as defined in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is entitled to deduction from the turnover of excise duty paid on the goods by the common principal. That excise duty is deductible from the turnover is not in dispute but the Tribunal took the view that inasmuch as the commission agent was not the person who paid the excise duty, he would not be entitled to ask for deduction under rule 6 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. 2. We are unable to accept that view. The transactions which were put through by the commission agent were really those of the principal and on his behalf. The commission agent will not normally be dealer, but for the purpose of assessment the expre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »